leopard cage, Angkor Zoo

Well, I knew I was in for a lot of criticism...

Most forumsters seem to strongly disagree with my views on matters such as these but most of them respond in a polite and calmly reasoned way (torie, sooty mangabey, dragon(ele)nerd and nayer) while Chlidonias, on the other hand, chooses a condesending stance, calling me a racist and telling me "bleat on as much as you want about animal rights".

As in previous debates of this kind, I find zooman to be a brother in arms. Cheers, mate!

We are all in agreement that this leopard "exhibit" is horrible. The difference between me and my critics, is that I will never accept poverty (or any other reason for that matter - be it religion, cultural customs, traditions or whatever - not even the "utilitarian" argument that the practise in question may in the long run serve a conservation purpose) as a means to justify cruelty towards animals like in this example.

I argue that the lack of education combined with extreme poverty are two enormous issues which cannot be dismissed - where those two factors exist to such a degree, enclosures are rarely better than this. Most people in these countries don't realise that this is generally not how animals are exhibited nowadays (though they may have been just a few decades ago) and poverty renders animal rights a long way down the country's list of priorities.
Again, this is an undeniably cruel practice, and I don't promote it: I'm trying to highlight that these factors are very limiting and not just mere excuses which can be thrown aside.

Thanks nayer. Another polite and calmly reasoned post.

I disagree with you, though. I would argue that even the poorest man on earth - however uneducated he might be - would understand that he would cause a big cat great pain and msuffering by confining its life to be lived in a small bunker.

Thanks Dan, I'm glad you feel that my posts so far have been rational and polite.
I know where you're coming from, so I'm not particularly upset by your comments, I just feel differently about these matters and don't think that you can disregard such big factors. Having spoken to directors of several struggling third-world zoos, I've found that a zoo's funds tend to be the main restricting factor. If they significantly raise the entrance price, fewer people will afford to visit; much of the remainder tends to depend on government funding (which, as outlined previously, is often quite tight) or if the zoo has been privatised, they collect funds in various ways. Most people would prefer to see a leopard rather than sitting in the corner of a small cage, climbing a tree or interacting with its environment - they'll probably pay more to see it. For this reason, I agree with your point that anyone would recognise that it is unnatural to display such animals like this, but even if they wanted to change it, financial constraints would probably be limiting.
As I've said before, I'm not meaning to defend this treatment of animals, just trying to explain my views on why it exists.

Thanks, nayer! You argue your points very well and in a very nice way, but this is simply one of those debates where we will have to agree to disagree, I guess.

Come to think of it, I still probably owe it to nayer to qualify my argument a bit more, since nayer has gone to great lenghts to explain his/her views, and done it in a most pleasant and polite way.

My argument, in short, is this: Third world countries should not have zoos. If you are dirt-poor - don´t have zoos. (If you are dirt-poor, then don´t keep pets.)

In all honesty, I have reservations about the theory that zoos in the rich world play that big a part in enlightening the public in general about conservation (though fellow forumster Zooplantman has provided me with very interesting counter-arguments; can´t remember that particular thread right now) - I am even more doubtful when it comes to Third World countries.

I get "disgusted enough" when forumsters tell me about unsupervised school classes running around in zoos in the the western world, annoying the animals, screaming and shouting while their teachers are sipping coffee at the zoo café. I get even much more annoyed when I read about "keepers" in Asian zoos "pleasing the visitors" by helping them to scare the animals, poking at the animals in their small cages with sticks etc. (The worst example I have read about so far, don´t remember if it was here at ZooChat or at some other site, was from some Chinese zoo where the keepers handed out sticks to the visitors to the monkey house...). The Chinese "zoos" where you, as a visitor, can buy chickens, goats and (apparently) even cows and throw them down the wall into the tiger enclosure - I think - strengthens my point. As do all the "freak shows" in Thailand and other places ("boxing matches between orangutangs" etc).

Again, and in short: poverty is no excuse for animal abuse. That is my main point and I will go on argumenting this as long as I am active at ZooChat.

This being said, I respect your views, nayer. But I don´t think there is any point in continuing our debate. I will not convince you and you will not convince me.

It would be lovely for all involved if animal husbandry was only be limited to those who could afford it, wouldn't it? Yet neither does the majority of humans obey this demand (why should they? Anyone anywhere wants the best for him/herself-even if that includes the entertainment of a zoo or keeping pets...), nor do apt finances consequently equal apt husbandry. And what if a Third World Country ascends in rank, due to newfound wealth? Are they then allowed to have zoos? Or if, on the contrary, a country declines in wealth and thus "World" Status-does that mean they consequently have to close their zoos?

How would you realise such a demand? A 'pet police'? Doesn't even work in China-and what to do with the then confiscated animals? Too often, it's like fighting the Lernaean Hydra; you cut off one head, and at least two new grow...

Unfortunately, a lot of Third World Countries are also biological hotspots; add a fastly growing human population, and overboarding animal trade/husbandry in all its form is unevitable.

Believe it or not: I can sympathise with some aspects you mention-yet blind emotional rage doesn't help at all, and conveys a rather strange, naive weltanschauung...

@Dan: Thanks again for your comments and for elaborating on your opinion; It looks like you're right, we're both just too stubborn to be convinced!

ROCK ON, nayer!

Nice to have met you here at ZooChat! Go on writing here!

I don't mean to interrupt your argumament but does anyone else think that it looks like someone has pissed on the front of this cage.